{"id":107192,"date":"2009-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009"},"modified":"2015-02-11T12:24:22","modified_gmt":"2015-02-11T06:54:22","slug":"s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"S.Kamatchi vs M\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Kamatchi vs M\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 01\/07\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\nCrl.A.Nos.1223 to 1226 of 2001\n\nS.Kamatchi\t\t\t . . . Appellant in\t\n\t\t\t\t       Crl.A.No.1223\/2001\/\n\t\t\t\t       Complainant\n\nP.Kalyanasundaram\t\t  . . . Appellant in\t\n\t\t\t\t        Crl.A.Nos.1224 & 1225\/ \t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t2001\/Complainant\n\nP.Chandrasekaran\t\t  . . . Appellant in\n\t\t\t\t\tCrl.A.No.1226\/2001\n\t\t\t\t\t\/Complainant\n\nVs.\n\n1.M\/s.Arkaa Medicament,\n  through its Managing Director,\n  Mr.A.Dhanasekaran\n\n2.A.Dhanasekaran\t\t  . . . Respondents in<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t\tall the appeals\/
\n\t\t\t\t\t Accused<\/p>\n
\tThese criminal appeals have been filed  under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.
\nagainst the judgment  dated 30.11.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.133 to 136
\nof 2000 by the Additional District and Sessions cum Fast Track Court No.III,
\nMadurai, reversing the conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case Nos.199,
\n277, 539 & 540 of 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
!For appellants in
\n all the appeals\t  … Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
\n\t\t\t      for M\/s.A.L.Gandhimathi
\n^For respondents in
\n all the appeals\t  … Mr.T.Muruganandham<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
\tChallenge in these criminal appeals is to the judgments passed in Criminal
\nAppeal Nos.133 to 136 of 2000 by the Additional District and Sessions cum Fast
\nTrack Court No.III, Madurai, wherein the conviction and sentence passed in
\nCalendar Case Nos.199, 277, 539 & 540 of 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate Court
\nNo.II, Madurai are set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.In the complaint filed in C.C.No.199 of 1998, it is stated that the
\nfirst accused is a partnership firm and in which the second accused is one of
\nits partners. The second accused has approached the complainant for getting
\nfinancial assistance and borrowed money in the year 1990 and on 10.03.1995 the
\namount has been calculated to the tune of Rs.54,000\/- and for the said amount,
\nthe second accused for himself and on behalf of the first accused, has executed
\na pro-note.  The second accused has admitted and acknowledged the liability and
\nwith the intention to repay the same, he has given the cheque in question on
\n15.08.1997 for a sum of Rs.54,000\/- in favour of the complainant and the same
\nhas been presented in the concerned bank and the concerned bank has retuned the
\ncheque in question stating ‘funds insufficient’ and subsequently a legal notice
\nhas been issued and even after receipt of the same, the accused have failed to
\ndischarge their liability and under the said circumstances, the accused are said
\nto have committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
\n1881.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.In the complaint filed in C.C.No.539 of 1998, it is stated that the
\nfirst accused is a partnership firm and in which the second accused is one of
\nits partner.  The second accused for himself and on behalf of the first accused
\nhas approached the complainant for getting loan and he received money in the
\nyear 1990 and on 10.03.1995 the amount has been calculated to the tune of
\nRs.21,080\/- and on the same day, he has executed two pro-notes, each for a sum
\nof Rs.10,540\/- and he issued the cheque in question for a sum of Rs.21,080\/- in
\nfavour of the complainant and the same has been presented in the concerned bank
\nand the concerned bank has returned the same stating ‘funds insufficient’ and
\nsubsequently a legal notice has been issued to the accused and even after
\nreceipt of the same, the accused have failed to discharge their liability and
\nunder the said circumstances, the accused have committed offence under Section
\n138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.In the complaint filed in C.C.No.540 of 1998, it is stated that the
\nfirst accused is a partnership firm and in which the second accused is one of
\nits partner and the second accused for himself and on behalf of the first
\naccused, has approached the complainant for getting money and he borrowed the
\nsame in the year 1990 and on 10.03.1995 the amount has been calculated to the
\ntune of Rs.17,360\/- and on that day, the second accused has executed a pro-note
\nfor the said sum in favour of the complainant and he has also issued a cheque
\nfor the said sum in favour of the complainant and the same has been presented in
\nthe concerned bank and the concerned bank has returned the same stating ‘funds
\ninsufficient’ and subsequently a legal notice has been issued and even after
\nreceipt of the same, the accused have failed to discharge their liability and
\nunder the said circumstances, they have committed offence under Section 138 of
\nthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.In the complaint filed in C.C.No.277 of 1998, it is stated that the
\nfirst accused is a partnership firm and in which the second accused is one of
\nits partners. The second accused has approached the complainant for getting
\nfinancial assistance and he borrowed money in the year 1990 and on 10.03.1995
\nthe amount has been calculated at Rs.21,300\/- and on the same day, for the said
\nsum of Rs.21,300\/- the second accused has executed a pro-note and also issued a
\ncheque for the said sum in favour of the complainant and the same has been
\npresented in the concerned bank and the concerned bank has returned the same
\nstating ‘funds insufficient’ and subsequently a legal notice has been issued and
\neven after receipt of the same, the accused have failed to discharge their
\nliability and under the said circumstances, the accused have committed offence
\nunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The trial Court, after considering all the evidence available on record,
\nhas found both the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act, 1881 and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000\/- with default clause
\nagainst the first accused and six months simple imprisonment against the second
\naccused and also directed both the accused to pay the amount mentioned in each
\ncheque as compensation. Against the conviction and sentence passed in
\nC.C.Nos.199, 277, 539 & 540 of 1998, the accused as appellants have preferred
\nCriminal Appeal Nos.133 to 136 of 2000 on the file of the first appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The first appellate Court, after hearing both sides and after
\nreappraising the evidence available on record, has allowed all the appeals and
\nthereby set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in
\nCalendar Case Nos.199, 277, 539 & 540 of 1998. Against the judgment passed by
\nthe first appellate Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.133 to 136 of 2000, these
\ncriminal appeals have been filed at the instance of the complainant in each
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The contentions mentioned in all the complaints are that the first
\naccused is a partnership firm and the second accused is one of its partners and
\nduring the year 1990, the second accused for himself and on behalf of the first
\naccused has approached the complainants to get financial assistance and
\naccordingly the amount mentioned in each complaint has been advanced to the
\nsecond accused and the second accused has received the same for himself and on
\nbehalf of the first accused and on 10.03.1995  amounts have been calculated and
\nto that extent the second accused has executed pro-notes in favour of the
\ncomplainants and on the same day, he issued the cheques in question in favour of
\nthe complainants and the cheques in question have been presented in the
\nconcerned bank and the concerned bank has returned the same stating ‘funds
\ninsufficient’ and subsequently all legal formalities have been observed.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The trial Court, has found both the accused guilty under Section 138 of
\nthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and invited conviction and sentence as
\nstated supra.  But, the first appellate Court, has come to the conclusion that
\nthe cheques in question have been given in respect of time barred debts and
\ntherefore, the accused cannot be mulcted with punishment under Section 138 of
\nthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these criminal
\nappeals, common judgment is pronounced.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Before contemplating the rival submissions made by either counsel, it
\nwould be apropos to look into the provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act, 1881 and the same reads as follows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the accounts.-
\nWhere any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker
\nfor payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account
\nfor the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is
\nreturned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to
\nthe credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it
\nexceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made
\nwith that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and
\nshall without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with
\nimprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may
\nextend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months
\nfrom the date of on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity,
\nwhichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque,  as the case may
\nbe, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a
\nnotice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the
\nreceipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque
\nas unpaid, and\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount
\nof money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the
\ncheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
\n\tExplanation.- For the purpose of this section, “debt or other liability”
\nmeans a legally enforceable debt or other liability.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12.From the explanation given to the said section one can easily discern
\nthat the cheque in question should be given in connection with a legally
\nenforceable debt or other liability and in a nut-shell on the date of issuance
\nof cheque in question a legally enforceable debt or other liability must be in
\nexistence.  If a cheque has been given not with regard to legally enforceable
\ndebt or other liability, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the drawer
\nof the cheque has committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
\nInstrument Act, 1881.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants\/complainants in  all
\nthe criminal appeals has repeatedly contended that the first accused is a
\npartnership firm and the second accused is one of its partners  and during the
\nyear 1990, the second accused has approached the complainants to get financial
\nassistance and he obtained loan from the complainants in the said year and on
\n10.03.1995 the amounts due from the accused have been arrived at and on the same
\nday, the second accused for himself and on behalf of the first accused has
\nexecuted pro-notes mentioned in the complaints in favour of the respective
\ncomplainant and he also issued the cheques in question in favour of the
\nrespective complainant and even though the loans have been advanced to the
\naccused in the year 1990, the accused have paid interest and therefore, the loan
\nmentioned in each complaint is not barred by limitation and the trial Court,
\nafter considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly found
\nboth the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
\n1881, but the first appellate Court, without considering the contentions urged
\non the side of the respective complainant, has erroneously come to the
\nconclusion that on the date of issuance of the cheques in question loans in
\nquestion have become time barred and the cheques in question have not been
\nissued on the basis of legally enforceable debt and therefore, the conclusion
\narrived at by the first appellate Court is totally erroneous and the same is
\nliable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents\/accused
\nin each criminal appeal has also equally contended that in each complaint, it
\nhas been specifically stated that the loans in question have been given in the
\nyear 1990 and no document has been produced so as to establish the alleged fact
\nthat the accused one and two have paid interest to the respective complainant
\nand the trial Court, without considering the question of limitation properly,
\nhas erroneously found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act, 1881, but the first appellate Court has rightly come to the
\nconclusion that the cheques in question have not been issued so as to discharge
\na legally enforceable debt and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the first
\nappellate Court in each appeal is perfectly correct and the same need not be
\ninterfered with.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.In order to perpend the rival submissions made by either counsel, the
\nCourt has to look into the allegations made in the complaints. In all the
\ncomplaints, it has been specifically stated that the second accused on behalf of
\nthe first accused has approached the complainants in the year 1990 and obtained
\nthe amount mentioned in the respective complaint by way of loan and on
\n10.03.1995 the amounts due have been arrived at and on the same day, the second
\naccused on behalf of the first accused has executed pro-notes in favour of the
\nrespective complainant and also issued the cheques in question.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.The only legal point that has now winched to the fore in the present
\ncriminal appeals is ;\n<\/p>\n
\t“Whether the cheques in question have been issued in respect of legally
\nenforceable debts or not?”\n<\/p>\n
\t17.The specific case of the complainant in each complaint is that the
\nsecond accused on behalf of the first accused has received loan in the year 1990
\nand on 10.03.1995 the amounts due from the accused have been arrived at and the
\nsecond accused has executed pro-notes in favour of the respective complainant.
\nBut, to utter dismay, no such pro-note has been marked on the side of the
\ncomplainant in each case.  The admitted case of the complainant in each case is
\nthat the loan in question has been advanced in the year 1990. The learned
\ncounsel appearing for the appellants\/ complainants has argued that after getting
\nloan in the year 1990, the accused have paid interest on several occasions.
\nBut, to prove the same, no document has been marked on the side of the
\ncomplainants.  Further as stated earlier, even though a settlement has been
\narrived at on 10.03.1995 and pro-notes have been executed by the accused, no
\npro-note has been marked on the side of the complainants.  Therefore, it is
\nquite clear that the cheque mentioned in each complaint has been given in
\nrespect of time barred debt.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.The cheque in question which has been marked in C.C.No.199 of 1998 has
\nbeen given on 15.08.1997.  The cheque in question which has been marked in
\nC.C.No.539 of 1998 has been given on 15.08.1997.  Likewise, the cheque in
\nquestion which has been marked in C.C.No.540 of 1998 has been given on
\n15.09.1997.  The cheque in question which has been marked in C.C.No.277 of 1998
\nhas been given on 01.08.1997.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.It has already been pointed out that as per the explanation given under
\nSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the cheque in question must
\nbe given only in respect of legally enforceable debt or other liability. In the
\ninstant cases, the debt mentioned in every complaint has become time barred on
\nthe date of issuance of the cheque in question.  Further no valid
\nacknowledgement of debt has been established on the side of the complainants.
\nAs per Section 19 of the Limitation Act, a debt should be acknowledged within
\nthe period of limitation.  In the instant cases, as taunted earlier, even though
\nit has been contended on the side of the appellants that the accused have paid
\ninterest, no document has been forthcoming to that effect.  Further a time
\nbarred debt cannot be construed as a legally enforceable debt.  Under the said
\ncircumstances, the Court can safely come to a conclusion that the cheques in
\nquestion have not been given in respect of legally enforceable debts and on that
\nscore alone, all the complaints are liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants\/complainants has also
\nadvanced another limb of argument stating that in the instant cases, no defence
\nhas been taken on the side of the accused with regard to limitation and
\ntherefore, the Court is not bound to look into it, but the first appellate Court
\nhas unnecessarily given a finding to the effect that the cheques in question
\nhave been given only in respect of time barred debts and the finding given by
\nthe first appellate Court is nothing but supernumerary and the same is liable to
\nbe rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.It is an everlasting principle of law that a person who institutes a
\nlegal proceeding is bound to say that the same is within the contour of
\nlimitation.  But it is not the duty of opposite party to take the plea of
\nlimitation as a defence and the Court is having ample power to look into
\nlimitation even though the same has not been taken as a defence.  Further in the
\npresent cases, the complainants have not at all explained that the alleged
\ntransactions made between them and accused are not barred by limitation.
\nTherefore, the entire arguments advanced by the  learned counsel appearing for
\nthe appellants\/ complainants are of no use.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants\/complainants has
\naccited the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\ta) In AIR 2002 Supreme Court 985 (A.V.Murthy  Vs.  B.S.Nagabasavanna) it
\nhas been held that dismissal of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the
\nNegotiable Instruments Act, at threshold on the ground that as amount was
\nadvanced 4 years prior to the issuance of cheque, is illegal.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the above case, the Honourable Apex Court has come to the conclusion
\nthat with regard to the amount in question, the accused therein has shown the
\nsame in his balance sheet for every year and the same amounts to valid
\nacknowledgement. Under the said circumstances, the Honourable Aped Court has
\nheld that the dismissal of the complaint at threshold is improper.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the instant cases, no such occasion has arisen.  As taunted earlier, no
\nacknowledgement has been proved on the side of the complainants.  Therefore, the
\ndecision referred to supra cannot be attuned in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)In 2007 STPL (DC) 988 Bombay (Purushottam Vs. Manohar K.Deshmukh &
\nanother), it has been held that the accused has admitted during his examination
\nunder Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he had received money
\nfrom the complainant and under the said circumstances, the order of acquittal is
\nimproper.\n<\/p>\n
\t In the instant cases, no such admission has been made by the accused 1 &
\n2 and therefore, the decision referred to above is not having application to the
\nfacts of the present cases.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)In 2008 STPL(DC) 322 Bombay (Nagpur Bench) (Vijay Ganesh Gondhlekar Vs.
\nIndranil Jairaj Damale)  it has been held that the loan in question has been
\nadvanced on 01.03.1995 and the cheque in question has been issued on 01.03.1999
\nand during interregnum period the loan has been renewed in the year 1996 and
\nalso in the year 1997.  Under the said circumstances, a valid acknowledgement
\nhas been made within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs stated earlier, no acknowledgement has been made in the present cases
\nand the alleged payment of interest has not at all been proved by the
\ncomplainants and therefore, the facts of the present cases are totally contra to
\nthe facts of the decisions referred to supra and under the said circumstances,
\nthe decision referred to supra cannot be relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
\td)In 2001(4) CTC 382 (SC) (K.N.Beena Vs. Muniyappan and another) in view
\nof the presumption contains in Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable
\nInstruments Act, the Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for
\ndebt or other liability and the presumption is rebuttable.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the instant cases, the specific contention of the complainant is that
\nthe loans in question have been given in the year 1990 and subsequently amounts
\nhave been calculated till 10.03.1995 and on the same day,  pro-notes have come
\ninto existence and thereafter, the cheques in question have been issued on
\nvarious dates.  But, the above aspects have not been proved on the side of the
\ncomplainants.  Under the said circumstances, the presumptions available under
\nSections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be drawn in favour
\nof the complaints.\n<\/p>\n
\te)In (III) 2007 BC 752 Karnataka  (S.Parameshwarappa and another Vs.
\nS.Choodappa) it has been held that the accused-drawer cannot seek  dismissal of
\ncomplaint on the ground of want of consideration or legally enforceable debt for
\nissuance of the cheque.  Only after cheque presented after its valid period,
\nsuch contentions would arise.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt has already been discussed in detail and ultimately found that the
\ncheque in question under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
\nmust be given only in respect of a legally enforceable debt or other liability
\nand a time barred debt cannot be construed as a legally enforceable debt.
\nTherefore, in the instant cases all the cheques in question have been given only
\nin respect of time barred debts.  Under the said circumstances, it cannot be
\nsaid that the accused have committed offences under the said sections.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.The first appellate Court has mainly relied upon the following
\ndecisions;\n<\/p>\n
\ta)In 1997 (2) Crimes 658 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) it has been held that
\nthe alleged loan has been advanced in the year 1985 and the cheque has been
\nissued in the year 1990 and the debt has become time barred.  By issuance of
\ncheque, limitation has not been extended.\n<\/p>\n
\tb) In 2001 MLJ (Crl.) 115 (Kerala) (Joseph Vs. Devassia) it has been held
\nthat the alleged loan has been given to the accused in January 1988 and the
\ncheque has been issued in February 1991 and debt has become time barred and
\nthere is no valid acknowledgement of liability.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.Since this Court is of the considered view that a time barred debt
\nwould not come within the meaning of a legally enforceable debt and since the
\nsame view has been taken by the High Courts of Andharpradesh and Kerala as per
\nthe decisions mentioned supra, this Court is not in a position to rely upon the
\ndecision rendered by the Karnataka High Court reported in (III) 2007 BC 752
\nKarnataka  (S.Parameshwarappa and another Vs. S.Choodappa).  Therefore, viewing
\nfrom any angle, the entire contentions urged on the side of the
\nappellants\/complainants cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.The first appellate Court, after having threadbare discussion in each
\nappeal has clearly come to the conclusion that the debt mentioned in each
\ncomplaint is barred by limitation and this Court has not found any valid reason
\nto make interference with the well merited judgments passed by the first
\nappellate Court and altogether the present criminal appeals deserve dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.In fine, these criminal appals deserve dismissal and accordingly are
\ndismissed.  The judgments rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos.133 to 136 by the
\nAdditional District and Sessions cum Fast Track Court No.III,  Madurai are
\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n
gcg<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
\n  FTC No.III, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Kamatchi vs M\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01\/07\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM Crl.A.Nos.1223 to 1226 of 2001 S.Kamatchi . . . Appellant in Crl.A.No.1223\/2001\/ Complainant P.Kalyanasundaram . . . Appellant in Crl.A.Nos.1224 & 1225\/ 2001\/Complainant P.Chandrasekaran . . . Appellant in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107192","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Kamatchi vs M\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Kamatchi vs M\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-11T06:54:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Kamatchi vs M\\\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-11T06:54:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3803,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009\",\"name\":\"S.Kamatchi vs M\\\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-11T06:54:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Kamatchi vs M\\\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Kamatchi vs M\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Kamatchi vs M\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-11T06:54:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Kamatchi vs M\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-11T06:54:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009"},"wordCount":3803,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009","name":"S.Kamatchi vs M\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-11T06:54:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kamatchi-vs-ms-arkaa-medicament-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Kamatchi vs M\/S.Arkaa Medicament on 1 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107192","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107192"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107192\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}